Alan, All
Just a marker fort now. It would be useful to coordinate this with
work on the clinical trials ontology, OCRe which is being developed
in conjunction with Ida Sim at TrialBank, the UK CancerGrid Project,
Samson Tu at Stanford.
I am not likely to make the telecon today - just baack from holiday
and found this by accident. I'll try to find out later.
Regards
Alan Rector
On 27 Aug 2007, at 20:18, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
> In case it's of interest, I did a small prototype of how one might
> evaluate the sort of criteria, in OWL, that Rachel describes in her
> attachment. The post about it is here:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2007Feb/
> 0076.html
>
> Subject: counted inclusion + exclusion criteria in OWL
>
> This only addresses the technical issue of how to write the rule.
> It doesn't questions of necessary vocabulary, that would be needed
> to handle the use case Rachel suggests, just how to put them
> together once you have it.
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Aug 27, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Rachel Richesson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I am attaching some background information on the use case for
>> discussion on tomorrow at 11 eastern.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will do my best to lead the call and get feedback on the context
>> of the use case, and the constructs that might be of most
>> interest. The attached document describes the idea of querying EMR
>> data for patients potentially eligible for a given research
>> protocol, and includes the eligibility criteria from 3 breast
>> cancer studies that are listed on ClinicalTrials.gov. These
>> examples illustrate the many constructs (lab, findings, history,
>> procedures, diagnosis, mutationâ€¦.) that are found in â€œeligibilityâ€